The excerpt sort of ends at a part that seems to possibly give the impression that the article is claiming people shouldnt have guns. This is not the thesis of the article. It argues people do need guns to protect themselves from others but that in the case of an oppressive government guns would do little good against the firepower of the United States military.

Simple- Outlaw Liberalism- With no liberals, peopel are FREE to defend themselves agaisnt criminals- Criminals will NOT attempt their crimes in neighborhoods where homeowners are experienced gun owners

Which is it - do you want to reduce gun violence, or do you want to reduce violence and save lives?

If all you care about is gun violence, just pass a law saying violence committed without a gun is OK. Then anyone who wants to commit violence will go to some trouble to do so without a gun, if possible.

Im not saying that under a law like that criminals might not crucify you - but at least they wouldnt be using guns to do it. </sarcasm>